tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post6565342459336123115..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: New Podcast with Stanford Carmack on Textual Analysis of the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72407876327261996072015-04-10T02:58:57.209-05:002015-04-10T02:58:57.209-05:00How about this, champatsch. I'll admit that I&...How about this, champatsch. I'll admit that I'm as woefully ignorant as you like, and that I am not (yet at least) willing to work very hard to investigate the Book of Mormon. So you can stop making posts that just accuse me of ignorance and unseriousness, and save a few gazillion electrons.<br /><br />You yourself have evidently done a lot of serious, thoughtful reading of Skousen and the Yale edition of the Book of Mormon. You must have noted the clear, cogent arguments. Can you not be so kind as to pass this understanding along? Help a brother out? On just one little point?<br /><br />Just what is it about the Book of Mormon's language that could not result naturally from imperfect imitation?<br /><br />If Skousen's work is worth anything, then he will surely have provided a solid and succinct answer to that question, and a thoughtful reader like you must have grasped his point easily. So you could explain it briefly to someone like me.<br /><br />Or?James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77301242018878942122015-04-06T18:11:12.464-05:002015-04-06T18:11:12.464-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20376351407086960362015-04-06T16:58:39.423-05:002015-04-06T16:58:39.423-05:00Here I address Orbiting’s recent musings, although...Here I address Orbiting’s recent musings, although I believe that he knows the answer to the issue he references. Makes me wonder what his game is, to use his own phrase. If one wants to engage in scholarly study of the BofM (such as English linguistics), then one certainly consults the Yale edition. That is the unexpurgated text that is very close to the revealed text (the dictation). Church leadership has designated the 1981 edition (2013 printing) as the canonical text. For church solidarity, one uses that in almost all church-related activities. Differences between the two barely impact doctrine, but the differences are numerous and important if one is studying BofM language. For instance, if one wants to make KJB italics arguments, one had better consult the Yale edition.<br /><br />Skousen has discussed 1837 edits throughout his 4,000+ page ATV, freely available to anyone interested. He has recent articles that discuss many textual points relevant to some of Smith's 1837 edits, articles that are easily accessed by anyone. Some like to make various trinitarian and racism arguments about them, but these arguments are not reliable because they disingenuously overlook unedited passages in order to make those points. Smith was inconsistent and incomplete in his 1837 editing, most of which is grammatical in nature--e.g. changing which to who.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50045730990295276922015-04-06T16:46:58.240-05:002015-04-06T16:46:58.240-05:00Jacque wrote: "Why is Skousen's edition o...Jacque wrote: "Why is Skousen's edition of the 1830 version more authoritative?" That question shows a lack of engagement with the scholarship. Others have shown their lack of engagement with the scholarship as well, over and over. As a result, they have written misleading things, over and over. Skousen's work is NOT an edition of the 1830 version.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88048733427514685072015-04-06T14:55:11.505-05:002015-04-06T14:55:11.505-05:00You still haven't answered my question, Champs...You still haven't answered my question, Champsatch. Jacquesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46107706463524935982015-04-06T09:37:18.749-05:002015-04-06T09:37:18.749-05:00Well, enjoy your unserious, ill-informed, misleadi...Well, enjoy your unserious, ill-informed, misleading banter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-87052476900733338132015-04-06T02:54:59.273-05:002015-04-06T02:54:59.273-05:00@Steve
My complaint is with champatsch's dema...@Steve<br /><br />My complaint is with champatsch's demand that everyone 'engage the data' by reading Skousen, before posting about how supposedly subtle language patterns in the Book of Mormon actually sound consistent with fraud, through the simple process of imperfect imitation.<br /><br />The call to 'engage the data' may sound only reasonable, but in fact it presumes way too much. There is nothing so foolish that someone, somewhere cannot produce hundreds of pages of careful analysis about it. A pretty cursory glance around the internet will turn up vast quantities of 'data' on all kinds of wacko subjects, all based on worthless assumptions.<br /><br />Even if the Book of Mormon really is everything that Mormons believe it is, intelligent Mormons like the ones who post here must surely recognize that the basic story can only sound a bit bizarre to an outsider. A guy in the 1830s saw words in his hat, which miraculously translated ancient plates, which then disappeared. I can accept that intelligent people believe that, but I hope they can understand why my initial reaction is bound to be, Uh huh.<br /><br />The Book of Mormon is starting from a dubious position. Then there's a bunch of analysis published only in friendly journals, which claims to establish a point whose meaning is unclear even if it is true: we've got 1830's New England, and ancient Americas somewhere, but now Early Modern English is also in the mix? Why?<br /><br />I'm sorry, but this is still just a long way from being 'data' that anyone has to 'engage'. It's still at the cocktail party banter stage of, "I see. Interesting idea. But what about this?" There's a long way to go before the plausibility level gets high enough to be worth any time in serious reading.<br /><br />The response to simple suggestions about imperfect imitation as a source of otherwise 'subtle' language patterns seems a bit evasive so far. How about engaging with that suggestion a bit more? That only takes common sense and general knowledge; there's no need to go and read anyone's papers.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48673088319009425452015-04-05T09:33:11.541-05:002015-04-05T09:33:11.541-05:00Actually, Champ, Jacques has raised some very inte...Actually, Champ, Jacques has raised some very interesting questions.<br /><br />To ask why believers should trust the Yale edition rather than one vetted by Joseph Smith himself is implicitly to ask why believers should suddenly transfer their allegiance from subjective revelation to objective, secular-style scholarship.<br /><br />I have a similar question. If, as you now insist, the Yale edition is necessary for anyone who seeks a careful reading of the Book of Mormon, and since the Church encourages everyone to read the book carefully, then will the Church adopt the Yale edition as the official version (the one it hands out to everyone)?<br /><br />Or will the Church continue to condemn the vast majority of readers to what you consider to be a fatally inferior edition?<br /><br />In part, of course, these are questions about the revelatory authority of the Church and the secular authority of objective scholarship -- that is to say, questions important enough not to be dismissed as cavalierly as you've done here.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67587807611520622872015-04-05T08:11:17.205-05:002015-04-05T08:11:17.205-05:00Sadly, Jacque has just demonstrated what I caution...Sadly, Jacque has just demonstrated what I cautioned against, as have others who frequently comment here, time and time again. I would simply suggest that interested parties spend time reading the relevant literature before commenting on things they haven't taken the time to study and know. For those who wish to limit their research to works not published by LDS-affiliated organizations, why not examine the 2009 Yale edition. After all, it's published by a reputable, independent university press. Then compare it with the vast textual record that is available free of charge to anyone with internet access.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23313352139571929772015-04-04T23:28:07.346-05:002015-04-04T23:28:07.346-05:00Hi James,
The concept about Early Modern English ...Hi James,<br /><br />The concept about Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon was presented clearly and succinctly. You happened to disagree with the concept thus requiring more explanation. Is an electron (or photon) a particle or a wave? The answer can be given briefly and succinctly until I start prying further thus requiring more explanations.<br /><br />Steve<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-6954113117179755102015-04-04T19:42:35.142-05:002015-04-04T19:42:35.142-05:00A warning to those reading here. Serious study of ...<i>A warning to those reading here. Serious study of the 2009 Yale edition and Skousen's research needs to be done by many of these commenters before they weigh in on these matters. They have betrayed their own lack of engagement with the data and arguments in their comments.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. Joseph Smith himself edited the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon. Why is Skousen's edition of the 1830 version more authoritative? Jacquenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40682434522757212162015-04-04T18:41:58.590-05:002015-04-04T18:41:58.590-05:00Another warning to those reading here. Serious sch...Another warning to those reading here. Serious scholars do not limit their publications to friendly apologetics venues like the <i>Interpreter</i>.<br /><br />Serious scholars actively <i>invite</i> the most capable experts in their field, including secular experts, to scrutinize their work.<br /><br />Beware those who trade on their academic authority without truly earning it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1914182229764681822015-04-04T16:31:40.905-05:002015-04-04T16:31:40.905-05:00Isn't that just a runaround?
I'm not an e...Isn't that just a runaround?<br /><br />I'm not an expert in English historical linguistics or in the Book of Mormon. My questions and my arguments are based on common sense and general knowledge.<br /><br />Why can't you answer me in kind? <br /><br />If Skousen or anyone else has made a substantial point, why can't it be summarized? If it's too incoherent for anyone to explain it briefly, then I'm afraid I wouldn't call it a substantial point.<br /><br />I teach quantum mechanics for a living. It's a difficult subject. I still usually manage to give the gist of its major ideas, and indicate in lay person's terms why we believe in them. Sometimes people do ask me things that I can't explain in a few sentences. When this happens, I don't blame them. I apologize for not understanding my subject as well as I should.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-63678285955911803992015-04-04T16:20:21.534-05:002015-04-04T16:20:21.534-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-29658591370913018272015-04-04T16:13:34.355-05:002015-04-04T16:13:34.355-05:00A warning to those reading here. Serious study of ...A warning to those reading here. Serious study of the 2009 Yale edition and Skousen's research needs to be done by many of these commenters before they weigh in on these matters. They have betrayed their own lack of engagement with the data and arguments in their comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-72840503836568555532015-04-04T14:30:35.582-05:002015-04-04T14:30:35.582-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-61000997983879264122015-04-04T09:53:09.676-05:002015-04-04T09:53:09.676-05:00Joseph Smith did NOT have to research any archaic ...Joseph Smith did NOT have to research any archaic styles to write the Book of Mormon. All he had to do was know the King James Bible, but fail to reproduce its style perfectly. <br /><br />My claim is that if you let me get as familiar with some other style as Smith was with the KJB, then I would be able to produce a document which was similarly like my target style, but not perfectly like it. The result would be a document with similarly 'subtle' patterns of language, due to the combination of imitation and imperfection.<br /><br />My Carlyle imitation would seem like Carlyle at first glance, except a bit overdone. On close inspection it would likely show weird mixtures of Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the King James Bible and my grandfather. Since this mix would represent my own subconscious associations with Carlyle's style, it would be a peculiar dialect that no-one else could exactly reproduce if they tried.<br /><br />But plenty of other people would be able to do something similar of their own. There is nothing miraculous about the style of the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, even with all its 'subtle' patterns, it is very much what I would expect from a fraud by Joseph Smith.James Anglinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18266855639647700167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-64290534859040901962015-04-02T09:09:32.212-05:002015-04-02T09:09:32.212-05:00Writes Darren:
Orbiting Kolob claims he could eas...Writes Darren:<br /><br /><i>Orbiting Kolob claims he could easily [meet Nibley's challenge], but yawns at the opportunity to make history and accomplish the task because, apparently, such an endeavor would be a waste of his time.</i><br /><br />This might come as a surprise to you, but most of the non-Mormon world, to the extent it thinks of Joseph Smith at all, does not think very highly of him, nor of the history he made.<br /><br />We certainly don't think of him as on par with Jesus or Buddha, but rather as an early version of L. Ron Hubbard.<br /><br /><i>Also, if [meeting Nibley's challenge] is stupid and a waste of time of sorts then, arguably, Joseph Smith wasted his time in producing the Book of Mormon. You really want to go there with your arguments?</i><br /><br />This statement is not just "arguable," it's silly. It assumes that just because one person, at one point in history, finds something a waste of time means that someone else, in completely different circumstances, will also find it a waste of time.<br /><br />That's just silly.<br /><br />Example 1: it wasn't a waste of time for Tycho Brahe to make all those precise measurements of planetary positions, but it sure would be a waste of time for you or me to do it today.<br /><br />Example 2: It wasn't a waste of time for a man like Joseph Smith, with so few legitimate opportunities to rise to fame, to concoct a faux scripture that, however poorly written, could trick some of the more gullible of his contemporaries into believing him to be a prophet of God. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a waste of time for someone like me, fortunate enough to have been born into much better circumstances, to try a similar trick.<br /><br />L. Ron Hubbard tried it, and look at the legacy <i>he</i> left behind.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23635695715148361122015-04-02T00:21:12.831-05:002015-04-02T00:21:12.831-05:00I find the argument that the Book of Mormon is so ...I find the argument that the Book of Mormon is so unique and amazing that it is not easy explained to be a really poor argument. <br /><br />As an artist/educator, I have often pondered over the words of Spencer Kimball who said that some day we'll have another Beethoven, Michelangelo, or Shakespeare rise up among the Saints. A lot of Mormon artists have desired to fulfill his words. But Beethoven, Michelangelo, and Shakespeare were not the legends they are today in their own time. Today, these men are more than they ever were, and in reality, more than they really are. <br /><br />A certain set of events have enshrined them in their high position today. Yes, their quality work had something to do with it. But Shakespeare has some real clunkers in his oeuvre. He isn't all Hamlet, you know. <br /><br />There will never be another Shakespeare. Because even Shakespeare of the 1600's isn't as marvelous and legendary as Shakespeare of the 21st Century. <br /><br />The Book of Mormon is what members think it is because of decades of enshrining it within the culture. Sure, it may have some qualities that have captured our attention, but decades of talking about it have created a myth around the book that, while perfectly valid for those who buy into it, simply does nothing to prove its authenticity. <br /><br />There have been other fraudulent works of literature that have masqueraded as ancient literature that have captured the attention of many people. Many highly placed people, I might add. <br /><br />Interestingly, occultic traditions often spring off of these fraudulent works. And they persist even after the book is determined to be a fraud. <br /><br />Learn about the Corpus Hermeticum and the big splash it made, and continued to make, even into Renaissance Europe among the most educated elite. <br /><br />Those who buy into the legend around the Book of Mormon cannot see the book in any context outside of that legend. <br /><br />With many decades of reverence paid to that book between today and 1829, it is ludicrous for any believing Mormon to think he/she could form any sort of objective opinion about the quality or significance of it.Just like we can never know Shakespeare like Shakespeare knew Shakespeare every day when he looked into his own mirror before he got down to work on such renowned masterpieces as....Titus Andronicus????? or, uh.....Pericles, Prince of Tyre????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-83725072684906299972015-04-01T20:49:01.803-05:002015-04-01T20:49:01.803-05:00So far two people here have risen to the challenge...So far two people here have risen to the challenge and clain they can reproduce an equivalent to the Book of Mormon. The first person, James Anglin, claims, if by implication, he could do so after researching archaistic styles unique to the Book of Mormon. That's something Joseph Smith never did yet wrote, distinct to his own personal writings, in a language dead by his time. The second person, Orbiting Kolob, claims he could easily do it, but yawns at the opportunity to make history and accomplish the task because, apprently, such an endeavor would be a waste of his time. Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-9718364243934542242015-04-01T20:41:36.054-05:002015-04-01T20:41:36.054-05:00"
I could easily write a book of such poor qu..."<br />I could easily write a book of such poor quality, with so much plagiarism, verbosity, and repetition. So could any number of other writers."<br /><br />Keep on point. Could you do it consistantly using Early Modern English? Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76365766733565290472015-04-01T20:39:36.709-05:002015-04-01T20:39:36.709-05:00Orbit;
Do note that I did not say the Book of Mor...Orbit;<br /><br />Do note that I did not say the Book of Mormon was writeen entirely in Early Middle English. I was only pointing out that imitating a dead language is not nearly as easy as it has been portrayed to be by some here (not by a long shot). Also, if doing it is stupid and a waste of tine of sorts then, arguably. Joseph Smith wasted his time in producing the Book of Mormon. You really want to go there with your arguments?<br /><br />As of today, 185 years after its first publication, the Book of Mormon stands as a unique publication, nobody has pruduced its equal. Hardly a waste of time to prove that fact wrong. These new studies on Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon strengthens its uniqueness in the literary world. How did Joseph Smith accomplish this?Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10193901544855464082015-04-01T17:16:21.378-05:002015-04-01T17:16:21.378-05:00Darren, the Book of Mormon is very poorly written....Darren, the Book of Mormon is very poorly written. It's verbose, clumsy, repetitive, and more than 20 percent plagiarized (and the plagiarized portions are by far the best in quality).<br /><br />Many people could write such a lousy book in fairly short order, especially about a topic in which they were already interested (and contrary to your assertion that he went into his writing blind, Joseph Smith did indeed know a lot about things like the various theories of Native American origins and 19th-century theological disputes).<br /><br />When people decline to accept Nibley's challenge it's not because Nibley was right, but because they have far better things to do with their lives. So stop crowing already.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-30574070786598417232015-04-01T17:09:06.271-05:002015-04-01T17:09:06.271-05:00Darren, no one is claiming that the Book of Mormon...Darren, no one is claiming that the Book of Mormon is written in EModE, whether faked or not. Carmack's claim is only that the book contains certain structures that are also found in EModE, and mine is that these structures appeared incidentally to Joseph Smith's deliberate imitation of the English of the King James Bible.<br /><br />Nibley's challenge has been stupid from the moment he issued it, based as it is on so many absurd assumptions about the Book of Mormon's supposed complexity and literary quality.<br /><br />I could easily write a book of such poor quality, with so much plagiarism, verbosity, and repetition. So could any number of other writers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04668073406352787818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-39722336144533692602015-04-01T17:06:31.752-05:002015-04-01T17:06:31.752-05:00James;
"I'm not going to write a six-hun...James;<br /><br />"I'm not going to write a six-hundred-page book just to prove this point,"<br /><br />Because that's a huge task to do, no? Just as you don't want to give up your life in order to write a 600 page book, Joseph Snith did just that. Or, rather, he forwent (is that a word?) his normal duties inordercto produce the Book of Mormon. <br /><br />It's interesting that you rely on your already aquired knowledge of writing characteristics and the need to imerse yourself in an author's writing style in order to reproduce that kind of work. What evidence do we have of Joseph Smith having any such knowledge?<br />Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10074265168754077171noreply@blogger.com